I agree that we need open-source and emancipate ourselves. The main issue I see is: The entire approach doesn't work. I'd like to give the internet as an example. It's meant to be very open, connect everyone and enable them to share information freely. It is set up to be a level playing field... Now look what that leads to. Trillion dollar mega-corporations, privacy issues everywhere and big data silos. That's what the approach promotes. I agree with the goal. But in my opinion the approach will turn out to lead to less open source and more control by rich companies. And that's not what we want.

Plus nobody even opens the walled gardes. Last time I looked, Reddit wanted money for data. Other big platforms aren't open either. And there's kind of a small war going on with the scrapers and crawlers and anti-measures. So it's not as if it's open as of now.

A lot of our laws are indeed obsolete. I think the best solution would be to force copy left licenses on anything using public created data.

But I'll take the wild west we have now with no walls then any kind of copyright dystopia. Reddit did successfully sell it's data to Google for 60 million. Right now, you can legally scrape anything you want off reddit, it is an open garden in every sense of the word (even if they dont like it). It's a lot more legal then using pirated books, but Google still bet 60 million that copyright laws would swing broadly in their favor.

I think it's very foolhardy to even hint at a pro copyright stance right now. There is a very real chance of AI getting monopolized and this is how they will do it.

If you try to sell "the new adventures of Doctor Strange, Jonathan Strange and Magic Man." existing copyright laws are sufficient and will stop it. Really, training should be regulated by the same laws as reading. If they can get the material through legitimate means it should be fine, but pulling data that is not freely accessible should be theft, as it is already.

used to train both commercial

commercial training is, in this case, stealing people's work for commercial gain

and open source language models

so, uh, let us train open-source models on open-source text. There's so much of it that there's no need to steal.

?

I'm not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.

I'm not sure why you added a question mark at the end of your statement.

I was questioning whether or not you would see that as a benefit. Clearly you don't.

Are you also against libraries letting people borrow books since those are also lost sales for the authors, or are you just a luddite?

As a civil matter, the publishing houses are more likely to get the full money if anthropic stays in business (and does well). So it might be bad, but I'm really skeptical about bankruptcy (and I'm not hearing anyone seriously floating it?)

C could still bankrupt the company depending on how trial goes. They pirated a lot of books.

Plantifs made that argument and the judge shoots it down pretty hard. That competition isn't what copyright protects from. He makes an analogy with teachers teaching children to write fiction: they are using existing fantasy to create MANY more competitors on the fiction market. Could an author use copyright to challenge that use?

Would love to hear your thoughts on the ruling itself (it's linked by reuters).

An 80 year old judge on their best day couldn't be trusted to make an informed decision. This guy was either bought or confused into his decision. Old people gotta go.

Orcs and dwarves (with a v) are creations of Tolkien, if the fantasy stories include them, it's a violation of copyright the same as including Mickey mouse.

My argument would have been to ask the ai for the bass line to Queen & David Bowie's Under Pressure. Then refer to that as a reproduction of copyrighted material. But then again, AI companies probably have better lawyers than vanilla ice.